1. health and fitness
2. disease

International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology
Citation: IJAEB: 8(1): 119-125 March 2015
DOI Number: 10.5958/2230-732X.2015.00016.9
©2015 New Delhi Publishers. All rights reserved
15
PLANT PATHOLOGY
Characterization of mungbean genotypes against mungbean
yellow mosaic virus and cercospora leaf spot diseases under
north east plain zone
Chandra Mohan Singh*1,2, Rahul Kumar3, S. B. Mishra4, Anil Pandey4 and
Madhuri Arya4
1Agro-meteorology
Division, Faculty of Basic Science and Humanities, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa (Samastipur)- 848 125,
Bihar, India.
2Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa (Samastipur)- 848 125, Bihar, India.
3Department of Plant Pathology, Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa (Samastipur)- 848 125, Bihar, India.
4Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Tirhut College of Agriculture, Dholi – 843 121, Muzaffarpur, Bihar, India.
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Paper No. 300
Received: 4 November 2015
Accepted: 5 March 2015
Published: 25 March 2015
ABSTRACT
Mungbean is an important legume crop due to its short behavior, nutritious and green mannuring
nature. But it is highly affected by several diseases and other factors, which reduces the yield and
seed quality. Mungbean yellow mosaic virus (MYMV) and Cercospora leaf spot (CLS) are the major
disease of mungbean. Therefore, the present study was conducted to characterize the 34 genotypes of
mungbean against MYMV and CLS disease during Kharif 2012 under two different date of sowing.
The present study indicated that the none of the genotype was found immune, resistant to MYMV and
CLS, whereas five genotypes namely DMS 03-17-2, IPM 2K-14-9, P 1131, DMS 02-11-4 and IPM 99-1-6
were found with moderately resistant reaction. These genotypes may be added in breeding program for
improvement of mungbean.
Highlights
• Thirty-four genotypes of mungbean were included in present study to characterize against MYMV
and CLS. To get the authentic result, genotypes were sown in two different dates.
• None of genotype showed immune/ resistant reaction for MYMV and CLS.
• Genotypes namely DMS 03-17-2, IPM 2K-14-9, P 1131, DMS 02-11-4 and IPM 99-1-6 were isolated as
moderately resistant for MYMV and may be included in breeding program.
Keywords: Mungbean, Characterization, MYMV and CLS.
Mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] is an
important short duration, self pollinated, annual
grain legume of Asia. It is a good substitute for meat
in most Asian diet and a significant component of
various cropping system (Srinives et al., 2000; Rudy
et al., 2006). It is an excellent source of proteins and
minerals, has been considered as a “poor men’s
protein” (Mian 1976). The grains of mungbean are
also used as animal feed. It also improves the soil
health. But, there are various factors, which are
responsible for poor yield of mungbean, among
which disease infestation is one of the most important
Singh et.al.
factor (Bakr and Rahman 1998). Many diseases affect
the mungbean crop, in which Mungbean yellow
mosaic virus (MYMV) transmitted by white fly
[Bashir et al., 1988] and Cercospora leaf spot (CLS)
disease caused by Cercospora cruenta, C. canescens
are the most important and damaging diseases
of mungbean (Ali et al., 2010) and cause economic
losses to mungbean. MYMV disease incidence as
high as 100% in farmers’ fields is common in the
Indian subcontinent, often resulting in considerable
losses (Jalaluddin and Shaikh, 1981; Varma et al.,
1992). CLS is also an important damaging diseases
of mungbean and cause yield loss up to 58% (Lal et
al., 2001). Diseased plants produce lower number of
pods with small and immature seeds (Poehlaman,
1991). Different approaches were adopted to
manage the MYMV and CLS disease such as spray
of insecticides, fungicides, different plant extracts
and use of resistant variety. However, the efficacy of
these approaches may vary due to method and time
of application; and the geographical location of the
country (Ali et al., 2010. Thus, need to identify the
elite lines of mungbean over diverse environments
with outstanding performance to develop the MYMV
and CLS resistant/ tolerant varieties. Therefore, the
present investigation was undertaken to evaluate the
34 mungbean genotypes against MYMV and CLS
under three environments by adjusting the sowing
dates.
Table 2. Scale for scoring of Cercospora leaf spot (CLS)
disease of mungbean
Score
No visible symptom
1
<5.00% Leaf area covered
3
5.10-10.00% Leaf area covered
5
10.10-50.00% Leaf area covered
7
50.1-75.00% Leaf area covered
9
>75.10% Leaf area covered
1
<5.00% Leaf area covered
3
5.10-10.00% Leaf area covered
5
10.10-25.00% Leaf area covered
7
25.10-50.00% Leaf area covered
9
>50.10% Leaf area covered
SN
Percent infection
Disease reaction
1
<5.00%
Immune
2
5.10-10.00%
Resistant
3
10.10-20.00%
Moderately resistant
4
20.10-30.00%
Tolerant
5
30.10-40.00%
Moderately tolerant
6
40.10-50.00%
Susceptible
7
50.10-80.00%
Moderately susceptible
8
>80.10%
Highly susceptible
Materials and Methods
The present investigation comprised 34 genotypes
of mungbean and genotypes were received
from Pulse Breeding Section, Department of
Plant Breeding and Genetics, Tirhut College of
Agriculture, Dholi, Munzaffarpur, Bihar, India.
The experiment was conducted at Crop Research
Farm of TCA, Dholi, which is situated (25.50N,
35.40E, 52.12 m MSL) in district Muzaffarpur of
North Bihar, India. Field experiment was performed
in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD)
with 3 replications in two sowing dates at 15 days
interval viz., 10 July 2012 (early sown) and 25 July
2012 (timely sown). Each genotype was sown in
six rows in plot of 4 m length with 10 cm seed to
seed and 30 cm row to row spacing. Weeding was
Percentage of foliage affected
0
No visible symptom
Table 3: Scale for disease reaction of mungbean yellow
mosaic virus (MYMV) and Cercospora leaf spot (CLS)
disease of mungbean
Table 1: Scale for scoring of mungbean yellow mosaic virus
(MYMV) disease of mungbean
Score
Percentage of foliage affected
0
120
Characterization of mungbean genotypes against mungbean yellow mosaic virus and cercospora leaf spot diseases
Table 4. Disease characteristics of mungbean genotypes against mungbean yellow mosaic virus (MYMV) disease
1
HUM 12
Disease Incidence (%)
Mean ± S.E.
DS1
DS2
38.93 ± 0.33
47.03 ± 0.70
2
IPM 02-4
55.66 ± 0.86
64.09 ± 2.03
29.27 ± 2.05
34.42 ± 0.62
3
NDM 09-18
51.46 ±0.36
59.10 ± 1.22
21.45 ± 1.31
24.83 ± 0.48
4
ML 1666
54.01 ± 0.40
60.91 ± 0.49
28.72 ± 2.29
30.24 ± 0.42
5
PM 08-02
29.94 ± 0.27
37.12 ± 2.13
12.81 ± 2.36
28.56 ± 0.87
6
SML 668
60.36 ± 0.63
70.43 ± 0.78
31.17 ± 1.44
48.22 ± 0.71
7
DM 99-11-5
52.47 ± 0.92
58.75 ± 1.10
22.95 ± 0.78
36.35 ± 0.90
8
DMS 03-17-2
44.55 ± 1.14
53.52 ± 1.46
16.40 ± 1.01
19.72 ± 1.82
9
DMS 01-34-2
51.99 ± 0.78
58.35 ± 1.23
20.66 ± 0.74
28.04 ± 0.58
10
DM 05-12-1-42-3
55.54 ± 0.81
63.46 ± 0.50
33.80 ± 0.79
36.20 ± 0.46
11
MEHA
60.35 ± 1.95
66.46 ± 1.53
37.63 ± 0.80
43.81 ± 0.87
12
DMC 17
54.18 ± 1.56
58.37 ± 0.82
21.50 ± 0.75
26.77 ± 1.86
13
TMB 37
58.63 ± 1.03
66.14 ± 1.43
32.15 ± 1.01
36.81± 1.29
14
SAMRAT
54.30 ± 0.62
59.44 ± 1.49
17.73 ± 0.50
23.87 ± 1.40
15
HUM 16
43.00 ± 1.00
51.58 ± 0.83
15.11 ± 0.40
20.12 ± 1.53
16
P 1232
52.19 ± 0.77
58.32 ± 0.81
19.35 ± 0.89
26.34 ± 0.25
17
P. Vishal
54.30 ± 0.38
59.33 ± 0.98
27.65 ± 0.68
32.31 ± 0.45
18
P 1131
52.98 ± 0.74
62.20 ± 0.97
20.67 ± 0.97
28.92 ± 0.39
19
IPM 2K-15-4
50.50 ± 1.18
58.56 ± 1.79
20.39 ± 0.74
22.39 ± 0.54
20
P 9531
46.74 ± 6.31
59.57 ± 0.37
21.35 ± 0.79
26.14 ± 0.24
21
PM 08-2
53.41 ± 1.31
60.85 ± 0.69
28.70 ± 0.87
32.88 ± 0.21
22
NDM 12-308
49.63 ± 0.77
52.69 ± 0.98
20.11 ± 0.75
22.81 ± 0.12
23
DMS 02-11-13
45.66 ± 1.20
51.45 ± 0.38
15.04 ± 1.15
20.27 ± 1.08
24
IPM 99-394
52.08 ± 0.90
58.59 ± 1.48
20.39 ± 0.58
22.86 ± 0.96
25
SML 1186
54.49 ± 0.29
58.85 ± 2.03
23.09 ± 0.93
26.51 ± 0.13
26
PM 5
51.47 ± 0.35
63.74 ± 0.26
25.03 ± 0.84
29.26 ± 0.24
27
SML 1151
48.47 ± 1.00
56.77 ± 1.57
18.37 ± 0.77
23.19 ± 0.98
28
IPM 2K-14-9
29.04 ± 1.14
35.88 ± 1.56
11.82 ± 1.14
17.49 ± 1.00
29
DM 05-74-11
52.77 ± 0.53
59.38 ± 0.56
22.32 ± 0.52
30.15 ± 0.58
30
IPM 99-01-10
51.06 ± 0.59
61.11 ± 2.08
20.40 ± 1.15
23.20 ± 1.30
31
PM 2
53.59 ± 0.22
61.97 ± 0.89
23.64 ± 0.88
36.57 ± 0.53
32
P 1131
44.36 ± 0.66
50.61 ± 0.14
15.47 ± 0.94
19.06 ± 1.74
33
DMS 02-11-4
38.32 ± 0.87
47.66 ± 0.22
15.18 ± 1.68
18.61 ± 2.34
34
IPM 99-1-6
39.32 ± 1.72
46.70 ± 0.93
17.03 ± 0.79
17.56 ± 1.49
C.D.
4.03
3.13
3.02
2.49
SE(m)
1.42
1.11
1.07
0.88
SE(d)
2.01
1.56
1.51
1.24
SN
Genotypes
Disease Severity (%)
Mean ± S.E.
DS1
DS2
11.79 ± 0.32
24.08 ± 0.50
C.V.
4.97
3.36
8.49
5.52
SN= Serial number, SE= Standard error, DS1= first sowing date, DS2= Second sowing date, CD= Critical difference, SE(m)= Standard
error of mean, SE(d)= Standard deviation, CV= coefficient of variation.
121
Singh et.al.
Table 5: Disease characteristics of mungbean genotypes against Cercospora leaf spot (CLS) disease
1
HUM 12
Disease Incidence (%)
Mean ± S.E.
DS1
DS2
26.34 ± 0.81
27.36 ± 0.63
2
IPM 02-4
34.32 ± 0.60
39.83 ± 0.48
35.85 ± 0.27
45.84 ± 0.57
3
NDM 09-18
34.31 ± 0.75
38.75 ± 0.29
39.71 ± 0.25
50.91 ± 0.30
4
ML 1666
20.58 ± 1.23
27.70 ± 0.58
45.95 ± 0.56
52.43 ± 0.88
5
PM 08-02
24.26 ± 1.23
34.60 ± 0.59
39.41 ± 0.23
47.97 ± 1.67
6
SML 668
19.52 ± 0.58
35.8± 0.293
45.17 ± 0.54
54.02 ± 0.37
7
DM 99-11-5
17.91 ± 1.11
22.50 ± 0.40
49.36 ± 0.79
55.79 ± 0.92
8
DMS 03-17-2
21.77 ± 0.68
31.55 ± 0.92
40.14 ± 0.57
47.81 ± 0.08
9
DMS 01-34-2
21.05 ± 1.28
26.76 ± 0.73
39.67 ± 0.44
50.84 ± 0.35
10
DM 05-12-1-42-3
18.02 ± 0.38
23.72 ± 0.61
42.70 ± 0.44
49.20 ± 0.84
11
MEHA
34.13 ± 0.48
45.31 ± 0.33
50.67 ± 0.17
57.30 ± 0.27
12
DMC 17
42.11 ± 1.75
51.03 ± 1.84
47.58 ± 0.38
53.50 ± 0.42
13
TMB 37
26.63 ± 0.83
35.98 ± 0.32
37.80 ± 0.80
44.96 ± 0.06
14
SAMRAT
17.94 ± 0.55
24.13 ± 0.42
47.67 ± 0.29
56.57 ± 0.25
15
HUM 16
24.97 ± 0.85
34.82 ± 0.84
47.13 ± 0.37
55.66 ± 0.76
16
P 1232
20.24 ± 0.74
26.83 ± 0.63
49.28 ± 0.84
54.65 ± 0.27
17
P. Vishal
32.60 ± 1.37
46.25 ± 0.64
50.75 ± 0.04
56.31 ± 1.31
18
P 1131
30.86 ± 0.46
43.89 ± 0.69
41.92 ± 0.36
50.43 ± 0.36
19
IPM 2K-15-4
21.66 ± 0.88
28.01 ± 0.79
45.76 ± 1.06
49.07 ± 1.11
20
P 9531
32.70± 0.48
46.25 ± 1.56
39.16 ± 0.06
47.87 ± 0.13
21
PM 08-2
18.68 ± 0.46
24.76 ± 1.14
40.40 ± 0.38
51.04 ± 0.57
22
NDM 12-308
25.06 ± 1.06
33.08 ± 0.20
40.21 ± 0.95
44.98 ± 0.07
23
DMS 02-11-13
19.70 ± 1.60
27.85 ± 0.19
47.53 ± 0.33
53.94 ± 0.29
24
IPM 99-394
34.16 ± 0.38
47.37 ± 0.27
50.98 ± 0.22
57.31 ± 0.50
25
SML 1186
25.09 ± 1.06
37.01 ± 1.14
41.86 ± 0.25
50.23 ± 0.52
26
PM 5
21.80 ± 0.60
32.44 ± 0.84
38.75 ± 0.50
44.71 ± 0.31
27
SML 1151
18.18 ± 0.83
24.64 ± 0.86
36.94 ± 0.46
42.45 ± 0.23
28
IPM 2K-14-9
36.84 ± 1.33
50.34 ± 0.59
47.95 ± 0.58
56.52 ± 0.28
29
DM 05-74-11
34.41 ± 0.53
46.41 ± 0.88
47.37 ± 0.48
56.25 ± 0.52
30
IPM 99-01-10
37.94 ± 0.88
50.64 ± 0.27
46.38 ± 0.94
53.56 ± 0.64
31
PM 2
27.39 ± 0.76
39.08 ± 0.14
49.86 ± 1.01
55.99 ± 2.35
32
P 1131
27.17 ± 0.48
40.72 ± 0.50
35.83 ± 0.28
44.64 ± 0.34
33
DMS 02-11-4
17.89 ± 1.67
27.54 ± 0.59
34.36 ± 0.62
43.31 ± 0.54
34
IPM 99-1-6
SN
Genotypes
PDI (%)
Mean ± S.E.
DS1
32.95 ± 0.32
DS2
39.09 ± 0.16
22.21 ± 0.80
28.55 ± 0.96
34.28 ± 0.60
38.95 ± 0.31
C.D.
2.46
1.95
1.54
2.06
SE(m)
0.87
0.69
0.54
0.73
SE(d)
1.23
0.98
0.77
1.03
C.V.
5.76
3.38
2.19
2.51
SN= Serial number, SE= Standard error, DS1= first sowing date, DS2= Second sowing date, CD= Critical difference, SE(m)= Standard
error of mean, SE(d)= Standard deviation, CV= coefficient of variation.
122
Characterization of mungbean genotypes against mungbean yellow mosaic virus and cercospora leaf spot diseases
performed when required during the growth period
of the crop. No any irrigation was provided due
to rainy season. No plant protection measure such
as insecticidal or fungicidal spray was adopted for
controlling the pest and diseases of the crop i.e. the
crop was allowed to grow in natural condition. The
visible symptoms of the CLS disease were critically
observed and infected plants were identified in the
field on the basis of symptom according to Bakr (1991).
The number of plants showing MYMV symptoms
was recorded by Visual Diagnosis Method (VDM)
according to Ahmed (1985). The disease incidence
of MYMV and CLS were recorded at 60 day after
sowing (DAS). The incidence of CLS or MYMV was
calculated as follows:
Disease incidence of MYMV and CLS (%) =
The disease severity was recorded at 60 DAS. The
severity of MYMV and CLS disease was recorded on
1-9 scale according to Singh et al., (1982) and Singh
et al., (1995), respectively. Five infected plants were
selected randomly in each plot and 5 leaves from
each plant were selected for scoring the disease
severity data. The percent disease incidence (PDI) of
MYMV and CLS were calculated as per methodology
of Mian (1995).
PDI (%) =
At random, five plants were selected in each plot to
record the data on biological yield and Seed yield per
plant. The data were subjected to statistical analysis
by using online computer programme OPSTAT for
proper interpretation.
Results and Discussion
Critical differences (CD) of genotypes showed
significant differences for disease incidence and
disease severity for MYMV; and disease incidence
and PDI for CLS under both sowing dates indicated
the presence of sufficient variability (Table 4 and 5).
The disease characteristics (incidence and severity)
and disease reaction of MYMV has been presented
in Table 4 and 6, respectively. The disease incidence
for MYMV was ranged from 29.04 - 60.36% and 35.88
- 70.43%; whereas disease severity was ranged from
11.79 – 33.80% and 17.49 – 48.22% for both sowing
dates (SD), respectively. For MYMV, the minimum
disease severity was recorded for HUM 12 followed
by IPM 2K-14-9, PM 08-02, Samrat, DMS 03-17-2, DMS
02-11-13, HUM 16, P 1131, DMS 02-11-4, IPM 99-1-6,
P 1232 under DS1, whereas DMS 03-17-2, IPM 2K14-9, P 1131, DMS 02-11-4, IPM 99-1-6 were recorded
with low disease severity under DS2. This finding
indicated that the five genotypes DMS 03-17-2, IPM
2K-14-9, P 1131, DMS 02-11-4, IPM 99-1-6 showed
low severity for MYMV under both sowing dates and
identified as moderately resistant genotypes may be
used as donor parents for mungbean improvement.
Similarly for CLS, the disease characteristics
(incidence and PDI) and disease reaction of MYMV
has been presented in Table 5 and 7 respectively.
The disease incidence for CLS was ranged from
17.89 – 42.11% and 22.50 – 51.03%; whereas PDI was
ranged from 32.95 – 50.98% and 38.95 – 57.31% for
both sowing dates (SD), respectively. For CLS, the
disease incidence in DS2 was found higher than
the corresponding DS1, indicating the proportion
of infected plants was high in DS2 population.
Out of 34 genotypes, 12 and 2 genotypes were
found moderately tolerant under DS1 and DS2,
respectively. Rest of the genotypes were grouped in
moderately susceptible and susceptible group. Thus,
these two genotypes viz., HUM 12 and IPM 99-1-6
may be added in mungbean breeding programme.
None of genotypes showed resistant and tolerant
disease reaction.
However, several reports on disease resistant of
MYMV are available and clearly indicated the
involvement of single recessive gene in governing
the MYMV resistance (Khattak et al., 2000; Khan et
al., 2007) and CLS resistance (Mishra et al., 1988) of
mungbean. Reddy, 2009 reported the single recessive
gene controlling the partial resistance and assumed
that two recessive genes may govern the complete
resistance in mungbean. Shukla and pandya (1985)
reported the two recessive complementary genes for
123
Singh et.al.
Table 6: Grouping of genotypes based on disease reaction for MYMV disease
1
Immune
-
-
Number of
genotypes
-
2
Resistant
-
-
-
3
Moderately resistant
11
1, 5, 8, 14, 15, 16, 23, 28, 32, 33,
05
34
8, 28, 32, 33, 34
4
Tolerant
19
2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21,
18
22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31
1, 3, 5, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19,
20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30
5
Moderately tolerant
04
6, 10, 11, 13
09
2, 4, 7, 10, 13, 17, 21, 29, 31
6
Susceptible
-
-
-
-
7
Moderately susceptible -
-
02
6, 11
8
Highly susceptible
-
-
-
SN
Number of
genotypes
Disease reaction
-
≠Genotypes (DS1)
≠Genotypes (DS2)
-
SN= Serial number, ≠Serial number of genotypes are same as Table 4, DS1= First sowing date, DS2 = Second sowing date, -Nil.
Table 7: Grouping of genotypes based on disease reaction for CLS disease
1
Immune
-
-
Number of
genotypes
-
2
Resistant
-
-
-
-
3
Moderately resistant
-
-
-
-
4
Tolerant
-
-
-
-
5
Moderately tolerant
12
1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 13, 20, 26,
02
27, 32, 33, 34
1, 34
6
Susceptible
03
11, 17, 24,
20
3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17,
18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31
7
Moderately susceptible 19
4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15,
16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 12
28, 29, 30, 31
2, 5, 8, 10, 12, 19, 20, 22, 26, 27,
32, 33
8
Highly susceptible
-
-
SN
Number of
genotypes
Disease reaction
-
≠Genotypes (DS1)
-
≠Genotypes (DS2)
SN= Serial number, ≠Serial number of genotypes are same as Table 4, DS1= First sowing date, DS2 = Second sowing date, -Nil.
complete resistance in mungbean. Thus, it cannot
be transferred easily from donor to recipient. But
crossing between extreme parents may give some
proportion of resistant plants in early segregating
generations. Reddy (2009) tried to improve the
YMV resistance in mungbean through mutation
breeding and found partial resistant mutant. Thus,
elite lines isolated from this study may be added
in crossing program for MYMV and CLS resistance
in early segregating generations. The crosses (F1)
of resistance/ tolerant and susceptible may also
be used in mutation breeding program to get new
combinations.
124
Characterization of mungbean genotypes against mungbean yellow mosaic virus and cercospora leaf spot diseases
Conclusion
The present study indicated that the genotypes DMS
03-17-2, IPM 2K-14-9, P 1131, DMS 02-11-4 and IPM
99-1-6 showed MR reaction for MYMV and none of
the genotypes showed with outstanding performance
for CLS. Thus, these five genotypes may be added
in breeding program as donor for MYMV resistance
after molecular characterization.
Acknowledgement
The authors are highly thankful to Coordinator, Pulse
Breeding Section, Tirhut College of Agriculture,
Dholi, Muzaffarpur, Bihar to provide the mungbean
genotypes and other facilities for completion of this
experiment. References
Ahmed, Q (1985) Fungicidal control of Cercospora leaf spot
of mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek). Indian Phytopath
38(3): 418-422.
Ali, MZ, Khan, MAA, Karim, MM, Ahmed, M and Ahmed,
MF (2010) Field performance of some mungbean varieties
against mungbean yellow mosaic virus and cercospora
leaf spot diseases. J Exp Biosci 1(2): 11-16.
Bakr, MA (1991) Management of Important Disease of
Major Pulses. Advances in pulse research in Bangladesh:
Proceedings of the Second National Workshop on Pulse
6-8 June 1998. ICRISAT, India. pp. 121-125.
Bakr, MA and Rahman ML (1998) Current status of research
on mungbean and blackgram diseases and future needs.
Proceedings of the Workshop on Diseases Resistance
Breeding in pulse. Bangladesh J Agric Res 11: 64.
Bashir, M, Zubair, M and Malik, BA (1988) Disease resistance
sources and utilization in breeding improved mungbean
in Pakistan. In: Mungbean: Proceedings of the Second
International Symposium on Mungbean. (Eds.): S
Shanmugasundaram. 16-20 November 1987. AVRDC,
Shanhua, Tainan, Taiwan (ROC), pp. 297-307.
Jalaluddin, M and Shaikh MAQ (1981) Evaluation of
mungbean (Vigna radiata (L) Wilczek) germplasm for
resistance to yellow mosaic virus. Sabrao J Breed Genet
13(1): 61-68.
Khan, MG, Ahmad, W, Khattak, GSS, Siraj-ud-Din and
Ahmad, H (2007) Mode of inheritance of resistance to
mungbean yellow mosaic virus in mungbean. Sharhad J
Agric 23(4): 1071-1074.
Khattak, GSS; Haq, MA, Ashraf, M and Elahi, T (2000) Genetics
of mungbean yellow mosaic virus (MYMV) in mungbean
(Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek.). J Genetics Breed 54: 237 – 243.
Lal, G, Kim, D, Shanmugasundaram, S and Kalb. T (2001)
Mungbean Production. AVRDC. pp 6.
Mian, AL (1976) Grow more pulse to keep your pulse well.
An essay of Bangladesh Pulse, Department of Agronomy,
BAU, Mymensingh. pp. 11-15.
Mishra, SP, Asthana, AN and Yadav, L (1988) Inheritance of
cercospora leaf spot resistance in mungbean. Plant Breed
100(3): 228-229.
Poehlman, JM (1991) The Mungbean. Westview Press.
Boulder. pp 169-274.
Reddy, KS (2009) A new mutant for yellow mosaic virus
resistance in mungbean variety SML 668 by recurrent gama
ray irradiatin. In Shu, Q.Y. (eds.) Induced plant mutation
in the genomics erra. Food and Agric. Organization of the
United Nation. Rome. pp. 361-362.
Rudy S, Sontichai C, Theerayut T, Sumana N and Peerasak S
(2006) Genetics, agronomic and molecular study of leaflet
mutants in mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). J Crop
Sci Biotech 10: 193-200.
Shukla GP and Pandya BP(1985) Resistant to yellow mosaic in
greengram. Sabrao J Breed Genet 17: 165.
Singh, BR, Sing, M, Yadav, MD and Dingar, SM (1982) Yield
loss in mungbean due to Cercospora leaf spot yellow
mosaic, Sci culture 48(12): 435-436.
Singh, SK Gupta, BR and Chib, MS (1995) Relation of plant
age with Yellow mosaic virus infection on mungbean yield.
In: Gupta, V K and Sharma, R C(Eds.), Integrated Disease
Management and Plant Health. Scientific Publishers,
Jodpur. pp 91-92.
Srinives, P, Hual-Alai, N, Saengchot, S and Ngampongsai S
(2000) The use of wild relatives and gamma radiation in
mungbean and blackgram breeding. In: Proc. 7th MAFF
Inter. Workshop on Genetic Resources Part 1. Wild
Legumes. October 21-25, 1999, Tsukuba, Japan. National
Institute of Agrobiological Resources, Tsukuba, pp. 205218.
Varma A, Dhar AK and Mandal B (1992) MYMV transmission
and control in India. In: Mungbean yellow mosaic disease.
Proceedings of an international workshop. (Eds.): Green,
SK and Kim, D. 2-3 July 1991, Bangkok, Thailand. AVRDC,
Shanhua, Tainan, Taiwan. Publication No. 92-373. pp. 8-27.
125